Google's new privacy policy gives it too much freedom with data collection, …

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Federal Trade Commission over Google's upcoming privacy policy changes, according to a posting on the EPIC site. EPIC says that the new privacy policy is in clear violation of a consent order the company signed with the FTC in March 2011 that was created in reaction to the Google Buzz privacy fiasco.

Google's privacy policy changes, to go into effect March 1, let the company synchronize data it collects from users across all of its services. Google claims this benefits its customers with better service integration; for instance, if your Android phone's GPS can see your Calendar, it can alert you that you will be late to an appointment if you're too distant from a meeting location. The business benefit is that user information gleaned from Google Wallet, Docs, and YouTube can be synthesized and used to target ads.

EPIC claims this policy change is in violation of the consent order Google signed with the FTC over Google Buzz's exposure of consumer data. The order states that Google must give the customer the ability to opt in (or out) to new instances of data sharing with third parties.

EPIC filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the FTC to enforce the consent order signed over Google Buzz. In the complaint, EPIC describes Google's privacy transgressions last year: "Google’s terms of service stated that Google would use information given by Gmail users only for to provide email services. Instead, Google used this information in Buzz."

Congress has expressed some concern over the policy change, to which Google responded with a letter stating that "the update is about making our services more useful for that individual user, not about information available to third parties", and that "the main change in the updated privacy policy is for users signed into Google Accounts." People can use the company's services without a Google account, or keep separate accounts for sensitive cases, says Google.

Of course, if a user decides the new privacy policy makes them uncomfortable, they can't continue to use Google's services the way they always have without a Google account—there is no more Gmail and no more YouTube uploads. "Google has come to control so many essential Internet services, it is silly to say now 'if you don't like what we are doing, go away,'" Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC, told Ars.

Google also says in the letter, "if a user is signed in, she can still edit or turn off her search history, switch Gmail chat to off the record, control the way Google tailors ads to her interests using our Ads Preferences Manager, [and] use Incognito mode on Chrome." However, the fact that these privacy-sensitive settings are not the default seems to be the most upsetting factor to privacy groups.

EPIC points out the the description of the new privacy policy addresses the fact that the data sharing will improve ads only in a limited, obscure way, and the announcement fails to "disclose that users can limit the aggregation of their personal information," the argument that Google tried to use to deflect Congress's concern.

The definition of "third party" is another point of contention. While Google's stance seems to be that acting as an intermediary between collected data and advertisers, along with the data's lack of personally identifiable information, is enough to dispense with the concern over whether the company is giving info to third parties. EPIC's motion states that "third parties" are everyone except Google and its subsidiaries. By that definition, advertisers are third parties, and Google's changes will "make it possible… to gain access to personal information which was previously unavailable to them," says EPIC.

"Of course, if a user decides the new privacy policy makes them uncomfortable, they can't continue to use Google's services the way they always have without a Google account—there is no more Gmail and no more YouTube uploads."Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

No one is forcing you to use windows. Plenty of alternatives out there.

Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

I might not be fine with it, but I also don't have any right to stop them or complain to everyone about it either.

I can decide not buy or use their future product.

If they tried to add it to Windows 7 I might have more of a grounds to complain, though I'd be complaining to two parties. Microsoft for mis-selling a product, and the courts for allowing EULA's that allow for such sucky behaviour in the first place.

Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

Yeah as long as they being upfront about it as Google. I don't why they would do that because they made their money from me when I brought my laptop on Windows 7 on it. Google need to make money from offering me free services some way. I guess people want Google to serve ads without using their personal info, which means random ads. I can understand that, but I bet it's not the profitable. I think they should just offer a subscription to their services without ads at all.

Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

'Who says they dont already?' If you dont want to use software that tracks, then dont use it. Now, if the government made it illegal to use anything but Microsoft, and you no longer had a choice, I would have problems. You can buy a Mac or Linux box. Potentially depending on intended usage, an iOS device, Android device or (for now) a BlackBerry.

I don't have a moral or legal right to expect Google to provide for me a free email service. If they want to scrape together my usage info and sell it so they can continue to provide me free email service, I personally still dont have a problem with that. Others may, and they are also free to use Hotmail instead. I'm fairly certain most ISPs still provide email addressees, so they can always switch to using those instead.It does say a lot towards the benefits of gmail, that I would prefer to use the free service, then one of the 5 email address that I'm arguably paying for with my cable provider.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

Yup. I'd switch to Linux, or MacOS, or one of many other options out there (most of which I actually use instead of Windows).

If I don't like Google's policy, I can use Yahoo. Or MSN/Bing/Hotmail/etc. Or *gasp* run my own mail server (oh, wait, I do).

Both. Google says, "the update is about making our services more useful for that individual user, not about information available to third parties". If true, then I'm sure most will choose to opt in. If not, then why is Google lying to Congress?

Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

sure if i could use microsoft office for free, if i could use sql server for free, if i could use the newest OS without paying for it. if i didnt have to pay for the PC......

Ive paid for all that stuff so i would have a problem with it. google is 'free'.

Yes, use of free Google services is voluntary, but ceasing using them is not without costs. One may have registered with hundreds of sites using their gmail address. Updating them all will take time. One may have Google Docs documents to move to a new platform which will take time. One might be relying on (and even paying for) Google Apps services for their company. Finding a replacement and moving to it could be very expensive.

Google may or may not be within the law, but either way it's still an imposition on their users and I judge them negatively for it. I would prefer that users be given complete control over the information Google collects about them and how it uses it. Most users would ignore the option anyway because we're lazy, but it would be more respectful to give them the choice.

EPIC ...fail (sorry, couldn't resist--too obvious). Google's new policy hasn't really changed from its old policies. Google knows everything you do on Google sites--that's not a "privacy" issue. And they aren't sharing anything about you with anyone that they weren't sharing [with] before. EPIC ...fools.

EPIC ...fail (sorry, couldn't resist--too obvious). Google's new policy hasn't really changed from its old policies. Google knows everything you do on Google sites--that's not a "privacy" issue. And they aren't sharing anything about you with anyone that they weren't sharing [with] before. EPIC ...fools.

Using the service and agreeing to the EULA is the same as opt in.

You're suggesting that you should get free services from Google, but they shouldn't be able to gather data to serve up their ads. How exactly are those services supposed to be paid for?

Well lets see using Google's services is a privilege not a right so why is this an issue? You are not paying for it, there's no contract saying what they can and can not change. If they do something you don't like take your business elsewhere, it's that simple. Seriously I don't see what the big deal is.

So if Microsoft started tracking, collecting, and monetizing everything you did on a Windows PC, you'd be fine with that, right? Using Windows is a privilege, and if you don't like it take your business elsewhere.

Yeah as long as they being upfront about it as Google. I don't why they would do that because they made their money from me when I brought my laptop on Windows 7 on it. Google need to make money from offering me free services some way. I guess people want Google to serve ads without using their personal info, which means random ads. I can understand that, but I bet it's not the profitable. I think they should just offer a subscription to their services without ads at all.

If you purchase Google Apps for business, then you get many of their core services (Docs, email, calendar, etc) without ads.

No one is forcing you to use windows. Plenty of alternatives out there.

Oh sure, since everybody and their grandma knows how to both <I>install</I> and <I>use</I> Ubuntu Linux, right? Hang on - last I checked there were 600+ distributions of Linux. Which to choose? What's more, how many mainstream PC applications (iTunes, Adobe Photoshop/Reader/etc., Microsoft Office, TurboTax, and the list goes on...) are designed to run <I>natively</I> on non-PC/Mac operating systems? Sure, there exist alternatives to these popular programs, but unless you are somewhat tech-savvy, how are you to know what to replace them with?

The PC user base covers a huge area, extending from entire enterprises down to the casual web surfer. If Microsoft was to (theoretically) suddenly change some feature of Windows that would cause a potential breach of privacy to its users, would one expect its entire user base to sit quietly and 'let it pass'? Similarly, Google is a critical component of the Internet community as a whole. If all of their servers were to suddenly go offline for even an hour, it would hit the headlines instantly - THAT'S how important they have become. Of course, there exist alternatives to Google, such as Vimeo/Hulu/Veoh, Ymail/AOL/Hotmail, MapQuest, among others. However, none of these services (in my opinion) offer the user experience, have proven as useful, or integrate so readily as Google's extensive software suite does (Remember, Google has a major share of the mobile phone market, too).

Google has placed itself in a position of both great power and great responsibility. Although they have the legal right to enact whatever policy change they see fit, they must tread lightly when it comes to user privacy. Yes, we may be considered product, not the customer (since the end user doesn't necessarily pay for Google's services, rather he or she provides Google revenue through targeted advertising), but since so much of our collective digital lives have been put onto their servers, at this point they should have more to think about than the bottom line.

No one is forcing you to use windows. Plenty of alternatives out there.

Oh sure, since everybody and their grandma knows how to both <I>install</I> and <I>use</I> Ubuntu Linux, right? Hang on - last I checked there were 600+ distributions of Linux. Which to choose? What's more, how many mainstream PC applications (iTunes, Adobe Photoshop/Reader/etc., Microsoft Office, TurboTax, and the list goes on...) are designed to run <I>natively</I> on non-PC/Mac operating systems? Sure, there exist alternatives to these popular programs, but unless you are somewhat tech-savvy, how are you to know what to replace them with?

The PC user base covers a huge area, extending from entire enterprises down to the casual web surfer. If Microsoft was to (theoretically) suddenly change some feature of Windows that would cause a potential breach of privacy to its users, would one expect its entire user base to sit quietly and 'let it pass'? Similarly, Google is a critical component of the Internet community as a whole. If all of their servers were to suddenly go offline for even an hour, it would hit the headlines instantly - THAT'S how important they have become. Of course, there exist alternatives to Google, such as Vimeo/Hulu/Veoh, Ymail/AOL/Hotmail, MapQuest, among others. However, none of these services (in my opinion) offer the user experience, have proven as useful, or integrate so readily as Google's extensive software suite does (Remember, Google has a major share of the mobile phone market, too).

Google has placed itself in a position of both great power and great responsibility. Although they have the legal right to enact whatever policy change they see fit, they must tread lightly when it comes to user privacy. Yes, we may be considered product, not the customer (since the end user doesn't necessarily pay for Google's services, rather he or she provides Google revenue through targeted advertising), but since so much of our collective digital lives have been put onto their servers, at this point they should have more to think about than the bottom line.

Is there a reason you don't consider OSX as an alternative to Windows?

Also, this isn't a privacy breach. They're sharing data across their own services with themselves.

Is there a reason you don't consider OSX as an alternative to Windows?

Patman27 wrote:

... how many mainstream PC applications... are designed to run <I>natively</I> on non-PC/Mac operating systems?

Sorry if I wasn't more clear with my "PC/Mac" distinction. Should've mentioned OSX explicitly, I guess...

bigmig wrote:

Actually, they do not have this right. They have signed a consent decree that limits their rights and prohibits them from doing what they are currently doing.

Right you are. What I should have said was "Although they have the legal right to push for whatever policy change they see fit (so long as it adheres to existing agreements), they must tread lightly when it comes to user privacy."

Does anyone actually care about these changes of policy? It seems more and more these days the comments section of all my tech sites are just rife with astroturfing. EPIC is just another Consumer Watchdog, funded in part by Microsoft. Google takes generalized information about your internet usage and tries to extrapolate an anonymous consumer profile, they in turn serve ads related to your profile, that's it folks.

After all this talk of being scared of Google, or worrying about your privacy so much, the fact is that if Google stopped assembling consumer profiles the ONLY difference you would see would be random adds instead of adds you might like to see, that's it!

Who sends you spam and or sells your information to spammers... not Google. Who gets your address off forms you fill online, then sends you junk mail... not Google. Who does GPS lookups thousands of times per year on cellphones... your own damn government, but not Google. If you want a real scare you might want to have a look at Facebook's privacy policy.

Without a Google account you can't upload to Youtube.com or use Gmail, that's it. Even with a Google account you can opt out of everything, done. Anyone here actually read the new policy?

After all this talk of being scared of Google, or worrying about your privacy so much, the fact is that if Google stopped assembling consumer profiles the ONLY difference you would see would be random adds instead of adds you might like to see, that's it!

So what's wrong with opt in? I'd prefer the non-targeted ads. Those who prefer the targeted ads can feel free to opt in.

Could not disagree more! I personally would not take pride in counting myself part of the "sheeple" that simply click "OK, thanks" for the new policy. That's not to say that it should be resisted outright, but come ON, at least take some initiative in keeping your online data under control! (or at least know where its going)